Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing the two possible states and what the response contains when finished, which annotations cannot express. It stops short of noting whether the download URL expires or how long processing typically takes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence carrying the status semantics and return payload, followed by a short endpoint note. No filler, though the endpoint path adds little for an agent that only needs to call the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the state model and the key return field, which is what an agent needs to decide whether to re-check. Missing is any guidance on retry timing or URL lifetime.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as an integer ExportID tied to the start-export tool. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Status of a report export') and immediately names the return payload ('CSV download URL'), which pins down what the tool does. The reference to export_id coming from enginemailer_start_transactional_report_export makes the distinction from that sibling explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The pairing with start_transactional_report_export and the Processing/Complete states imply the tool should be polled after starting an export, but the description never says so explicitly or states any polling cadence. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.